The Conservative Revolution

What is a conservative to do? In the war against militant Islam we certainly want to destroy the networks of al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the Mullahs of Iran, the Saudi Wahabis etc.. But at what cost to our own personal liberties? Should we allow the executive branch to wage war against nations without a declaration of war? Probably. Should we allow the detention of US citizens without charges being brought by the government? Maybe. Should we allow for torture of militant Muslims who seek to kill us? Probably not. I don’t have all the answers. But I do think these are questions that we should consider as conservatives.

Today I heard a lecture by a professor from Stanford who represented Jose Padilla (dirty bomber) before the Supreme Court. She told me that there have been numerous cases where the government had no evidence against suspected terrorists. She believes that the government should not be able to declare US citizens “enemy combatants” and that even suspected terrorists deserve Constitutional protections of due process. I tend to agree with her in theory, but not quite in practice. I think with fanatics like these who want to kill everyone who doesn’t own a Koran, we have to fight pretty dirty. We can’t win with one hand tied behind our back. However, what happens when the day comes that the federal government kicks down your door to take your guns? Or when the government deems all Christians “terrorists”? What about when the government declares that all those who carry a pocket-sized edition of the Constitution are terrorists? Then, will conservatives support the idea of hamstringing the government in its fight against “terrorists”? I pose this question as food for thought. I am not certain where I come down on this issue. But it is something we should all ponder.

Here is a good piece on the Churchill comments. David Horowitz seems to have the best plan for dealing with this guy.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16946

Here is the lastest story about our friendly mullahs: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050209/ts_nm/iran_dc

These guys just don’t know when to quit. You would think that the toppling of the Taliban and Baathists would send a signal loud and clearly. Apparently not. The Iranian governmented still wants a nuclear arsenal so it can blackmail its neighbors and become a defiant regional power. It might even threaten the state of Israel with a nuke. Some have called for regime change, others for an olive branch. I suggest we support democratic elements within the country, like the nonviolent student movement there. Why have liberals been so quiet on this issue? Don’t they support nonviolent student movements? I am waiting for an answer…

I am a proponent of the Academic Bill of Rights. This is a piece of legislation that suggests universities around the country adopt the ideals of intellectual diversity and academic freedom.

I wrote this in response to one of the bill’s critics.

This post has already been published here: http://cwslsplp.blogspot.com/

Here it is:

“This post is in response to the earlier one concerning academic freedom. My friend wrote, “an academic bill of rights is censorship. Some censorship is good and some is bad.” I submit to you that both of these statements are false.Indeed, there is a problem of political indoctrination in higher education. This stems not just from the lack of conservative profs ( I don’t condone affirmative action of conservative teachers ) but also from the discriminatory processes reflected in the hiring of college professors.

The problem is not so much that profs use the classroom as a bully pulpit to inappropriately bludgeon conservative figures and ideas, as it is the lack of intellectual diversity among the faculty. This lack of academic pluralism is due to the fact that left-wing academics consider their conservative brethren to be racist, sexist, homophobic, oppressive, imperialistic etc… and therefore shut them out of the academy by not allowing them to join the faculty if they do not toe the leftist party line. How to remedy the situation? We shouldn’t support “hiring more conservatives” to achieve a balance. Rather, we should adopt the Academic Bill of Rights, which prevents discrimination on the part of faculty hiring committees against conservative profs. This ensures that no one will be hired or fired based upon their political beliefs, as is the case now. To read the bill for yourself, click this link http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/abor.html

On the latter point raised in the previous post, I must disagree with the idea that censorship is necessary. As a free-market proponent, I believe that society should not impose its idea of what is “admissable” or “politically incorrect” on individuals. If individuals choose to print something that is “offensive” or “immoral” then parents have the right not to purchase that product, and to speak out against the publishers. If enough people in society agree that something is inappropriate (for example, Hustler Magazine) then they will vote with their pocket book and the free-market will take care of the problem. The FCC and entities like it do not protect society from itself as much as they impose the will of the “big brother” state and the religious lobby. As for professors in the classroom, no one is calling on them to do anything but perform the duties they were hired to do. Namely, they should teach the subject that they are experts in by providing students with all viable ideas, methods and analyses that they possibly can.

However, a Spanish teacher has no place spending an hour bashing the President or recruiting students for protests. Those types of activities should occur outside of the classroom setting, a place where the students are the consumers and deserve their money’s worth.”

Well, this is my other blog. The purely political one. I hope to have more than one loyal reader. But, if not, then I will still be entertained.